Some Thoughts on Independence & Middle Way

There are many perspectives in the Rangzen-Middle Way
debate raging at present, from the most inspiring Tibetan activists to
the most learned Tibet scholars. These people live and breathe the
movement 24-7 and deserve the utmost respect. But the movement is also
constantly appealing for support beyond that of the experts- to foreign
governments, to the media and to the general public across the world. So
as someone who does not live and breathe the movement 24-7, and as a
non-Tibetan, I thought I'd express the points which i think outsiders
like me, governments and media may be thinking regarding the TGIE/CTA's
current push for unity behind the MWA. As the movement seeks support
from outsiders, hopefully it is useful to consider the following points
encapsulating what outsiders' understanding of the movement is likely to
be.

1. The TGIE is a democratically elected government which
therefore represents the will of the majority of those able to vote. We
are all aware that Tibetans inside are generally not able to express
their vote, so the TGIE is accepted as representative of Tibetan exiles'
views, not of the views of Tibetans inside.

2. In any democracy, there will be differences of opinion,
different political parties etc; it is the fact that current governments
can be voted out which makes them accountable to the voters, and which
ultimately allows democracy to happen. In the future, there may well be a
'middle way party' and a 'rangzen party'; each wishing the best for
their country but each having different core policies. If the TGIE
wishes to be respected as a democratic entity and thus have meaningful
high level meetings etc, it must accept a multi-party, multi-strategy
reality both publicly and in practice behind the scenes. (We are talking
politics here, and moreover politics without the direct influence of
His Holiness, so nothing said privately is now likely to stay private
for long)

3. Those who show some level of support for Tibet (such as
the US) do not do so for selfless reasons; America would benefit from an
unstable and/or democratic China. If the TGIE moves away from
democratic ideals (publicly or privately) it must be ready to expect a
decline in support from the US, and TSGs must accept a withdrawal of
funding from organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). I know some TSGs depend on such
funds; when asking TSGs to support the TGIE's apparent switch to
accepting a non-democratic autonomy as the goal, it must consider how
this funding would be replaced.

4. Outside the movement, people (and politicians) regard
Chinese leaders as lacking in credibility for two main reasons;
dictatorship and corruption. If they see the TGIE attempting to 'unify'
the movement by demanding all accept it's strategy, this will appear to
outsiders as little different to the CCP's approach to 'democracy',
causing the Tibet movement to lose the moral high ground in the eyes of
many.

5. The use of His Holiness to push Tibetans away from the
rangzen strategy may make sense to those deeply involved in the
movement, but those outside see this as incredibly underhanded; when
Tibetans are told that if they don't support the TGIE they are
disrespecting the Dalai Lama it looks like emotional blackmail. I
realise that isn't what it is, but the TGIE must understand that how it
looks is incredibly important if they want support from outside the
movement. To outsiders it looks like corruption; and as such, the TGIE
may start to suffer from the same criticisms that are made against the
CCP.

6. His Holiness understands the movement better than any of
us, and he did propose the Middle Way approach, so it is logical that
to support His Holiness' vision is to support the Middle Way. However,
His Holiness has also stepped away from his political role, wishing
Tibetans to decide for themselves. It is apparent to observers that His
Holiness' policy was the Middle Way, but his policy is now for Tibetans
to decide for themselves in a democratic system. His Holiness is a great
leader not because he dictates but because he empowers; this is one of
many reasons why the outside world has had faith in him but never true
faith in any of the Chinese leaders who have opposed him. Will the Kalon
Tripa do what the Dalai Lama says or act how the Dalai Lama acts,
because if the latter, he will accept alternative strategies in the
movement, just as His Holiness has.

7. The Dalai Lama will always be the Dalai Lama, but
Lobsang Sangay will not always be the Kalon Tripa. Many would argue that
this is why His Holiness has stepped back; to divide the political and
the spiritual. As such, His Holiness has a personal view on political
strategy but he cannot have a policy. I know this sounds an odd
statement because we are so used to His Holiness having a policy, but
only politicians and political parties can have policies, so nowadays
His Holiness only has an opinion. So to say the MWA is His Holiness'
policy is incorrect. As His Holiness' view is an opinion, it does not
have to represent the opinions if other Tibetans, wheras the Kalon
Tripa, whoever that may be at any time, must represent, or allow there
to be representation of, views from across the community. The Kalon
Tripa will make mistakes as any of us would, and if his mistakes are too
great he will be voted out; this is how it should be. Observers expect
the Kalon Tripa to allow and even encourage debate. Can you imagine how
much of a laughing stock David Cameron would be if he demanded that the
Labour party axed the trade unions or they could not say they were
politicians, or how ridiculous Barack Obama would look if he told the
Republicans that if they did not support universal health care they were
anti-American? His Holiness, a spiritual leader, can guide people but
the Kalon Tripa is there to represent the people; he must follow their
opinion, not vice versa. And as opinion over strategy is split in the
exile community, he must accept that others may hold a different
opinion.

8. Observers still see His Holiness as the leader of the
Tibetan people, and this view is correct. However, people generally see
His Holiness as a leader forced out of his country, and who represents
Tibetans both inside and outside Tibet whereas the TGIE can only truly
represent Tibetans in exile. This is another reason why the TGIE must be
open to other opinions; remember the Middle Way/ rangzen debate occurs
primarily in exile; it may well be that most Tibetans inside support
rangzen, or that they do not see a difference and just want freedom. I
would imagine that the TGIE sees itself as somewhat representative of
Tibetans inside as well; as such it must acknowledge the fact that the
MW approach may not fulfill this duty of representation (whereas with His
Holiness in charge, this made more sense as His Holiness himself
represents all Tibetans, regardless of the strategy he adopts at any
point in time). Have any of the self-immolators used the slogan 'genuine
autonomy for Tibet'? If the world is seeing one thing and the TGIE is
saying another while demanding people follow them, it looks like the two
are not aligned.

9. Most people do not regard 'unity' to mean that everyone
unites behind a strategy, they regard it to mean that everyone unites
against a common foe. Looking at how successful freedom movements have
come about, there are often a variety of groups using different
strategies; sometimes a more concilatory approach like the MW can be
made more effective if an absolute approach like rangzen is also
present; the former can become a preferable solution to the opponent
than the chance of the latter taking place. So to demand that people
unite behind one strategy can actually be counter productive (especially
in a democratic system). If it's MW or nothing, the CCP will likely
choose nothing; if it's rangzen, MW or nothing they're far more likely
to choose MW if things change in China.

10. The more that the public/governments see infighting in
the movement, the less they are going to support any Tibet group. But
nobody believes that having an alternative strategy is infighting; its
just democracy. Telling others they must abandon their strategies causes
infighting. The CCP are known for their infighting; it'd be a shame if
the Tibetan movement also became known for that.

11. Whether it likes it or not, the Tibetan cause is seen
as a nationalist movement, despite His Holiness' MWA. Outsiders see His
Holiness himself as far more compelling than any policy, and most
leaders do not see beyond the awe they have for him, and they see him as
representative of a nation. The more these people see the movement
pushing away from Tibet the nation, the less they will associate His
Holiness with being a Tibetan (as people tend not to see Tibetans as an
'ethnic group' but as a national one). Can you imagine people beginning
to refer to His Holiness as 'the great Chinese spiritual leader the
Dalai Lama'?

12. On a similar note, it us confusing that institutions
which promote the MWA continue to use the Tibetan NATIONAL flag as a
symbol, when there would be no such thing under an agreement of autonomy
(even if there was a regional flag, the CCP would choose it and you can
bet thet would not choose the snow lion flag. This seems to be an
emotional issue- many MWA supporters raise the national flag and reject
the raising of the Chinese flag in public, but this is confusing as the
CCP flag WOULD be the correct flag under autonomy- the snow lion flag
only applies to an independence movement. I recall widespread criticism a
while ago of a Tibetan who raised both the CCP and snow lion flags in
support if MWA, but if he really wanted to represent MWA he'd actually
have to dump the snow lion flag. It sometimes appears that those who
drive against rangzen are naive about what it entails.

13. To outsiders, the altering of titles to make them less
'governmental' seems like concessions- governments are less likely to
hold a Tibetan administration in high regard, for example, than a
Tibetan government.

14. In the recent controversial statement by the CTA, there
are some recommendations on what TSGs 'must' do. Now, as a non-Tibetan
I'm not qualified to offer more than my outsider's opinion on the
mechanics of Tibetan democracy, but TSGs are NGOs and/or charities, so
how they are governed is not the preserve of Tibetans alone, there are
legal and regulatory issues. So to consider:

-As non-government organisations, TSGs are not bound by the decisions of
any government (including the TGIE) and in fact would in many countries
be acting illegally if they were to follow the TGIE's directions. The
TGIE may wish to consider this if it wishes for TSGs to survive, or to
support their views.

-TSGs (even more so if they're charities) are actually representative of
the aims outlined in their constitutions, and are responsible to those
who fund them (the general public who donate) to follow these aims. The
TGIE has no right to say things like 'TSGs must come up with policy
options that governments in Europe consider as non-confrontational' for
example; if confrontational tactics are present in the TSG's
constitution, supporters will expect them to have those tactics at their
disposal (and of course, as we see all around the world, such tactics
can be viable, practical and in fact inspire support)

-TSGs will become as 'professional' as they are able given the
funding/support they receive; some will never become so, unless further
funding is made available.

-A lot of the recommendations offered in Kelsang Gyaltsen la's address can just as accurately be levelled at the
TGIE; though it is not a TSG, I believe observers would find it more
inspirational if these points were directed at the whole movement rather
than just TSGs, as this would show that we are all working and
developing alongside each other in the true spirit if unity.

15. Outside the movement, people do not differentiate
between Tibetan exiles and Tibetans inside, and assume that when an
entity is speaking for Tibetans, they are speaking mainly for those
inside, as these are the Tibetans who are oppressed. Again, as a
non-Tibetan, it is these Tibetans who I am inspired by, and they are
showing a level of unity which we, despite our freedom to debate, still
need to aspire to. Take away the luxuries we all have outside and what
we have is a fight between oppressed and oppressor; some inside will
accept occupation, some will oppose it, others will find a balance. But
observing Tibetans inside, it's plain to see that they're all on the
same side, with the CCP as their opponents. I'd suggest that the public,
companies, governments outside are also observing this; if the
movement, the TGIE, TSGs want support from these people, they need to
appear just as inspirational; differing in views but united against a
common foe, not against each other.

Then again, the other question is do we really need/want
the support of governments who are unlikely to do anything meaningful
for Tibet until China's money runs out? And do Tibetans inside, pushing
for change, need either them or us? For me as an outsider, this is far
more compelling than any political debate and we should note that when
support comes it is always when oppression is exposed inside- there is
no meaningful coverage of internal debates, nor will there ever be
especially now His Holiness is not present in them- these debates are
simply not compelling.

What is compelling is what is happening to Tibetans inside.
If people are to be blamed for going against the views of the Dalai
Lama, picture this- His Holiness has made it clear that Tibetans inside
are 'our boss' and we should focus on them. Outsiders will observe that
spending time attempting to silence rangzen activists in exile is the
opposite.